More Like This

Preview

In many countries, including Australia, governments have legislated against anonymous gamete donation. A recent Australian Senate inquiry has reinforced this position and has supported non-anonymous donation grounded in a child's right to know the identity of their genetic parents. This article will consider the main reasons for the existence of such a right and will argue that it must first be shown that there exists a right to know the nature of one's conception before a right to identifying information regarding one's donor can be properly respected. The existence of such a right requires...

In many countries, including Australia, governments have legislated against anonymous gamete donation. A recent Australian Senate inquiry has reinforced this position and has supported non-anonymous donation grounded in a child's right to know the identity of their genetic parents. This article will consider the main reasons for the existence of such a right and will argue that it must first be shown that there exists a right to know the nature of one's conception before a right to identifying information regarding one's donor can be properly respected. The existence of such a right requires that the principle of ‘no harm, no foul’ is false in the case of non-disclosure of a child’s genetic origins. Establishing this is imperative to guide Australian legislation regulating and protecting a child's right to know their genetic parents. In this paper, I consider two arguments to overcome no harm, no foul – the argument from risk of harm and the argument from respect. If no harm, no foul does not hold, then the state in Australia will hold a duty not only to allow donor-conceived children access to identifying information regarding their donors but also a duty to ensure disclosure regarding the nature of the child’s conception in the first place.